The Greatest NBA Player: 5 on 5 Clone Game

[_MeDotOrg]

Importing older guards into the modern NBA is tough, ...

They would pick up their game by necessity. If Bob Cousy showed up for freshman high school basketball in 2013, he would still be a star.

Yeah, he was only 84 then. He's 90 now, and has slowed down ;-)

[_Markk]

I picked Michael Jordan because the dude could ball, not because he was on a team that won 6 championships.

LOL sure...because he could ball, is why he won 6 rings...the are mutual. You can't be the GOAT, without championships. Whether it be Ruth, Brady, or Jordon.

And I never said I picked players because of rings, but that rings are a sign of their greatness.

[_moksha]

Yeah, he was only 84 then. He's 90 now, and has slowed down ;-)

Yeah, I didn't specify that Cousy would be of high school freshmen age in 2013 if playing as a high school freshmen. These hypothetical points are so complicated!

[_EAllusion]

Importing older guards into the modern NBA is tough, ...

They would pick up their game by necessity. If Bob Cousy showed up for freshman high school basketball in 2013, he would still be a star.

Oh, I don't know about that. One reason modern players are better is because they have access to better training and nutrition. Old players would get that too, so maybe it's a wash. Another reason is that modern players are recruited from a deeper pool of talent so the relative competition improves. Bob Cousy can't do anything about that. And another reason on top of that is that offensive and defensive strategy has evolved and has different skill demands. Bob Cousy by modern standards would be too bad of a shooter to even see the floor consistently. Would he be a good shooter if that's what was asked of him? We don't know. The talent for it is something different than what was asked of him.

Frazier has the body type and skill set that translates, so he’s probably fine. Cousy is dubious.

[_EAllusion]

I picked Michael Jordan because the dude could ball, not because he was on a team that won 6 championships.

LOL sure...because he could ball, is why he won 6 rings...the are mutual. You can't be the GOAT, without championships. Whether it be Ruth, Brady, or Jordon.

And I never said I picked players because of rings, but that rings are a sign of their greatness.

It’s not tennis or golf Markk. It’s a team sport. Individual contribution isn’t enough to win consistently. It is not Charles Barkley or John Stockton’s fault the Bulls got Scottie Pippen.

[_EAllusion]

Ethan Happ is like a baby Kevin McHale. Same body. Same advanced post moves. Same strong defense. Same big man passing skills.

Kevin McHale is a hall of famer. Happ was one of the best players in college basketball, but will be lucky to even make an NBA team after being undrafted. He is probably going to Europe.

What gives? The fact that Happ is a bad shooter - at the PF spot - and generates his offense from time consuming post moves is not good enough anymore. Teams ain’t got time for that.

The game evolves and makes cross era comparisons difficult at times.

[_EAllusion]

Because they played against them, and beat most of them...As as GM he did not play against those he drafted...he did pick . That is a Dumb comparison.

Not shooting for range is not a liability, Michael Jordan was a horrible 3 point shooter, and is considered the GOAT by most folks. Isaiah averaged 4 more assists per game that Steph,plays better defense, and that is what I want on my team. I chose a running team, that can play a half court game if the have to. You chose a puss, that cries when he is covered man to man, that is your choice. And your team is slow and big, with no role players to compliment a system.

Alternatively, analysis of basketball and the ability to play it aren’t identical skills.

Jordan wasn’t a horrible 3 point shooter. He wasn’t good, but he wasn’t horrible. He avoided shooting from distance because his 3 point game was bad compared to what else he could be doing. His 3 point shooting is a liability too in this context, but he is also a player that at his peak averaged in modern pace terms over 40 points a game on 53ish % shooting while entire defenses were geared to stop him. Throw in his defense and that’s a trade-off I am taking. Thomas doesn’t give you anything like that. In all time terms, Thomas’s offense isn’t good.

Curry is cocky and whiny, but this notion you have that he melts to tough defense just isn’t correct. Curry is Curry because he hits difficult shots as if they weren’t and easier stuff like it’s shooting practice. You also still don’t seem to grasp how his presence on the court shifts defenses to make life easier for everyone else. It’s actually *because* his defenders try to stay glued to him that other players get good looks. If there was a such a thing as a shadow assist, he’d lead the league again and again. Your belief that he just needs someone tough to stick to him really misunderstands what is going on. If Curry can walk a defender off the floor, that’s really bad for the defense. A lot of those easy layups the Warriors seem to get are the result of Curry’s man being terrified of giving him space.

[_EAllusion]

Why did I pick Isaiah over Kidd...because he is better. That is a dumb question.

Kidd is better than Thomas at every aspect of the game you cite in favor of Thomas as a reason to include him. In particular, he was a much better defender in his prime. Every advanced stat available to measure this claim comes down in favor of Kidd. Kidd was also a more versatile defender. Kidd’s peak offensive impact, particularly in the half court, is a little below Thomas, but he’s also a much better rebounder, which you put a premium on. For what you want, Kidd can almost be thought of as an evolutionary Thomas. I don’t want Kidd, but I think you do.

Of course, if you go Kidd, then why not Chris Paul? That’s obviously better. And if you go Paul, maybe Stockton is the better option? You’re being presented with a gateway here.

Walt Frazier makes a ton of sense for what you like and is a defensible inclusion. Thomas is not. Are you by chance James Dolan?

[_Markk]

I picked Michael Jordan because the dude could ball, not because he was on a team that won 6 championships.

LOL sure...because he could ball, is why he won 6 rings...the are mutual. You can't be the GOAT, without championships. Whether it be Ruth, Brady, or Jordon.
And I never said I picked players because of rings, but that rings are a sign of their greatness.

It’s not tennis or golf Markk. It’s a team sport. Individual contribution isn’t enough to win consistently. It is not Charles Barkley or John Stockton’s fault the Bulls got Scottie Pippen.

LOL...that's why I picked a team based on having a chemistry, and players with certain roles biased on their strong points....your team was picked by yourself on individual merits, not as a cohesive unit like I did. You have some dream and misconception they will shoot 80% from the field.

You have no idea what you have even said.

I picked some of the best role player ever, to compliment some of the greatest players ever.

Again I would run your off the court. Your idea that good defense does not win championships is not defend-able...pun intended.

You have clearly shown you don't understand the game, did/do you play much, coach or ref?

You were mistaken ( had no idea about this recently happening in the playoffs) about Curry whining about defenses, Miller playing down low. You got the two Isaiah Thomas' mixed up...and more like rebounding and defense is not that important.

I tell you what...you pick a running team and I'll pick a half court pounding team.

[_EAllusion]

I didn’t list the best 12 players ever Markk. I picked a cohesive team that has clear angles it would try to win with. Not to be harsh, I just did it with a better grasp of what wins games. You seem to be stuck somewhere between 1988 and a land of lazy sports cliches.

I have the best defensive PF and SG ever starting. My SF probably is second all time behind a player I included on the bench. My center is top 5 all time in defense. I avoided some objectively better offensive players for this configuration. The main criticism I would expect for my team is that it leans too much on defense and would do better with more 3 point shooting. The idea that my team doesn’t care about defense is bizarre. I do understand that the cliché that defense wins championships is a dumb cliché’, but also get that point differential is the ultimate goal and being good at stopping is a valid way to accomplish that. I just refuse to put a relative offensive black hole on the floor. If I can pressure the defense at every point, I will do that.

Whining doesn’t make your play bad. LeBron James is not bad or “weak” because he whines a lot either. It might offend your sensibilities, but it has nothing to do with basketball skill. Some players just are just whiny. Curry was great in the playoffs. He scored nearly 30 points game on nearly 55 eFG%. Whining didn’t seem to get in the way of that. It’s not his fault God murdered his teams’ ligaments. Thomas - Mr. Clutch playoff performance - never came close to that kind of playoff performance offensively.

The idea that your team is the running team is the weirdest thing of all. Do you have any idea how fast those two teams are? My starting lineup is faster and my bench is designed to put an even faster lineup in while your bench is pretty slow. The roster I went with is dotted with some of best of the best transition guys. What’s your small running lineup look like?

I didn’t mix up Thomas with IT3. I think you mean I thought you were referring to Clyde Drexler when you were referring to Walt Frazier. I immediately corrected that when you clarified. These mistakes happen. You just did it yourself it seems.